AND, THEN, THERE'S JDC

As I was finishing a Post on JAFI wandering in the desert of No Relevant Purpose, soon to be published here, I read Debra Nussbaum Cohen's brilliant Jewish Insider article exposing the turmoil at the Joint -- The chaos disrupting the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee. Read the entire article at https://jewishinsider.com/2019/11/the-chaos-disrupting-the-american-jewish-joint-distribution-committee/

Sadly, another organization suffering from, among other things, a terrible senior professional leadership choice --  who, after being awarded compensation egregious by any standard now claims to have to return to the law school from which he came to preserve his "tenure;" declining federation allocations to the JDC core budgets; a drastic reduction in Claims Conference income; and a too shaqrp focus on creating endowments at the expense of current fund-raising.

One can only wish Stan Raben, a great lay leader, every success with his leadership in righting the JDC ship. The Joint is too important.

Kal ha'kavod to Debra on this great reporting.

Rwexler

PET PEEVE

I assume, because I have so many, that most of us have multiple pet peeves -- e.g., people who keep their cellphones on at Theatre or movies, those seatmates who take their shoes off when the plane takes off (for the rest of the flight), you know, stuff like that.

One of mine -- and I don't really understand why these things bother me -- those professionals who don't practice law but insist on:

~ putting "Esq." after their signature line on their business cards/stationary; and

~ more recently, adding their law degrees -- as in "Richard Wexler, J.D." or, as I just read another, "B.A., LLB" after his/her name

Look, I don't mind if those who have received Doctoral Degrees like to be introduced as "Dr." even if the doctorate is in, e.g., English Literature -- they worked for years in almost all instances to gain that degree. It should be noted that one of my favorite humorists and reporters, Tony Kornheiser, having received an Honorary Doctorate from his alma mater, SUNY Binghamton, periodically wears a doctors smock on his Pardon the Interruption show on ESPN. (And I won't even comment on his frequent donning of a Turban and/or a smock or dress -- unrelated to that Doctorate.)

But "Dr." is different from J.D. or BA or LL.B  -- different in degree of difficulty at the least. I received my J.D. in 1965 and never deployed it as part of my "title." Would my 4+ decade career have been different? Better? And, never did "Esq." appear below my signature after my name. 

I guess if one is practicing law folks with whom one is dealing know you're an "Esq." and that you either have an LL.B or J.D. without the need for further notice. But, someone please explain to me why if you are running a metals business and have a law degree or you're a Jewish community professional you would have the need to let everyone know that you also have a law degree.

If this is a trend, some will now be adding those undergraduate degrees, number of children, years at the job. My suggestion, store it all on LinkedIn. You will be found.

I know this is just my rant, but, if you have an explanation of "why," let me know.

Please.

Rwexler
.

YOUR COMMENTS...AN APPRECIATION

I receive your Comments with great appreciation for most of them. Reluctantly, I do understand the reasons most (close to all) of you wrap your Comments in a cloak of Anonymity.

Here are a few examples of your insights:

To my Post on Some Things Never Change -- a reflection on the futility of the JFNA "programs' in the Negev:

" An empire cannot thrive without funds and since JFNA doesn't do campaigns any more, the only way for the power hungry to continue to grow their empire is evidently to take donor funds that were raised for emergency relief and "reallocate" them for dedicated staff and programming that they can control.

Since our JFNA Global Operations "Agency" doesn't have the experience or the expertise that JDC/JAFI/ORT do, the "reallocated" funds are used to add more staff to the "team" and to throw money at local politicians so that they will always have great things to say about our wonderful Israel Office and it's wonderful leader. 

As usual at JFNA, lay committees are charged with the approval of use of these funds and blindly follow staff reccomendations, even though the staff in question are guided by an ideology of "make us look good" rather than "meet the needs" or even really attempting to fulfill the purpose on the basis of which the funds were raised in the first place.

Eric and Mark Wilf will certainly discover this abuse (along with many others) if they just bother to really have a look at what has been going on for the past decade at the "JFNA Agency for Israel." It is about time that someone bothered to have a look.  

Will they?"

To the Post Worse and Worse a request for rethinking: 

Have you given any thopught to the proposition that JAFI no longer merits even the projected $74 million allocated to it in 2019? What Jewish Agency programs (beyond the basic blocking and tackling of drastically diminished Aliya and Klitah) are worthy of even the funding that JAFI will receive from the Federations at the end of this year -- "Jewish unity?" "The only venue where the great issues confronting the Jewish People are debated?" "Fighting global anti-semitism?" I would respectfully suggest that the Agency deserves less, not more. Then, again, that's true of JFNA as well. 

THE GLICK "CRACKUP"

Caroline Glick, right-wing Israeli columnist and, recently, defeated candidate for the Knesset, returned to her role as pundit after that dip in the waters of Israeli politics. Her op-eds are totally supportive of Donald Trump and constantly mine the depths of her hatred for  anything to her left and, in particular, American Jews who fail to share her views.

Most recently Glick published Trump, Israel and the Democratic Crackup in JNS:  https//www.jns.org/opinion/trump-israel-and-the-democratic-crackup. I recommend reading that screed only because it exemplifies Ms. Glick's habit of building her arguments on false pretenses. 

Any analysis of this screed must start, as Ms. Glick did, with her false premise -- that way back in 2000 "...the Democrats refused to accept the election results in Florida that gave George W, Bush his victory..." Without a scintilla of evidence, without a single fact, the author concludes that that 2000 election marked the beginning of what she describes as the "radicalization" of the Democratic Party.

Building on this misstatement, Glick jumps directly to 2016 concluding that as the Democrats refused to accept the 2000 election results, so they have attempted to overturn the results of Trump's election and, as in the current GOP "talking points," the purpose of  today's impeachment inquiry "...is to nullify Trump's presidency by, among other things, deligitimizing and dehumanizing Trump, his family, associates and supporters." Not a fact is placed in evidence.

These misstatements continue for pages. Read them for yourself. Perhaps Ms. Glick was using this column is more than a fact-free version of purported "truth;" maybe it was intended as a job application for Fox News. Maybe an Israeli version of Jeanine Pirro or Katrina Pierson. 

Wishing her every success.

Rwexler

HUH?

So much that makes one scratch your head. For example...

~ A Friend of the Blog sent me this one: "Did you know that there are 8.5 million cats in Israel -- that's almost one cat for every person! If you're a fan of felines, show your love by sharing your favorite cat photo here. #National Cat Day #Meow."

And, just where did this inanity appear? You probably guessed it: It was a JFNA Facebook Post. There are no words. 

~  I am certain that some of you share what I would describe as my own anger with regard to Bernie Sanders speech to the J Street Conference. The condemnation of Israel from someone who has used the fact of his birth, that being born Jewish, to cloak himself with the right to unconditionally condemn the Jewish State without consequences and, perhaps, some sort of political advantage. Actually, Sanders' outburst at J Street fell in the category of "who can condemn Israel the most?"

While I often find myself in disagreement with Jonathan Tobin's editorial in JNS; I absolutely agree with him that Sanders' diatribe was worthy of only one thing -- scorn.  https://www.jns.org/opinion/bernies-gaza-aid-farce-exposes-j-streets-false-front/

 No one should be surprised that Sanders has shown his colors...again...in this most anti-Israel way. Nor should anyone be surprised that Bernie's attacks on Israel as "racist," on American military and foreign aid to Israel, and on the Israeli Prime Minister drew huge ovations from the J Street crowd -- it was, after all, the J Street crowd.

Rabbi Amiel Hirsch said it best: “The Democratic Party is increasingly tolerant of voices that are opposed to Israel’s existence.”

~ As we are reminded from time-to-time, JFNA's ersatz GA, this time titled FedLab will soon convene "by Invitation only." While the Lab appears to be dedicated to in-depth exploration of Total Financial Resource Development and "Powering Your Philanthropic Networks," it is hard to see the inherent return on investment from this Lab inasmuch as the the scholars and presenters remain unknown as I write this -- it appears that this is one of those "trust us" things. So I'm guessing that the presenters and speakers -- consultants in the main -- will be the same as those who appear at all JFNA FRD things. 

BTW, JFNA continues to promote the Lab as "by invitation only," and that may be true even as the organization appears to have invited anyone and every one. 

So, won't see you in D.C. but I'm anxious to learn the outcomes from this 3-day event...if any.

Rwexler

SOME THINGS NEVER CHANGE

I hope that JFNA CEO Eric Fingerhut will take a careful look at JFNA -- Israel and Overseas or JFNA -- Global Operations or whatever the hell that black hole is called at the moment. Ineptitude and hyperbole just slap you in the face like wet towels every time you look at the thing. I.m relatively confident that Eric will be able stop the bleeding from this Jerusalem hideaway if he chooses to do so.

And what has caused this outburst this time? In time for the October JFNA Board Meeting, the Desk of Rebecca Caspi produced what is now the monthly I&O Top Five (for October [on the 24th thereof]). And, there, as the number one thing (for October) something called #FedProud in the Negev. 


Here's the thing. JFNA's work in the Negev has been both minimal and fine. The problem: JFNA raised little or no money to support its work in the Negev; yet, the JFNA Negev Now Initiative had $2.5 million to spend -- how does that happen? Just as the organization funded its most recent education initiative with funds effectively stolen from the national agencies, the funding for its Negev activities were taken directly from the 2014 Operation Protective Edge campaign receipts ignoring the fact that those funds were raised to directly benefit the Victims of the Terrorists' War. 


And, now, just weeks ago, JFNA announced:

"Federation's Negev Now Initiative concludes after five years of building and supporting a more vital and attractive Negev."

Really, "concludes?" The needs have been met? Or is this just the reality that the Victims' Fund, raided for Negev Now, has been exhausted and JFNA hasn't the ability to raise any money at all? In the past months I have become engaged in the JNF-USA's vital work in the Negev, committing tens of millions of dollars in the most vital work in the Gaza Envelope, in Aleh Negev, in community building and People building. The leaders of JNF are fully aware that its work in the Negev, so vital to Israel's future and present is not over -- it's just begun. 

Only for JFNA is it "over."

I really don't get it. The JFNA Negev Now Committee is/was populated with a group of terrific lay leaders. The federation professionals are/were first rate. And JFNA-Israel provided four professionals and a consultant. Over the few years of its existence Negev Now engaged in something called "placemaking" --

"Placemaking is a multi-faceted approach to the planning, design and management of public spaces...that promote residents' health, happoiness and well-being."

Got it? "Public placemaking." One has to wonder if these programs were desigigned to satisfy local leadership or to truly aid the victims of "Stop the Sirens?"

The apparently final...as in forever...Report on Negev Now wraps the work in a kind of verisimilitude -- and that's a good thing, like qa bandage on a gaping wound is a good thing.

JFNA has declared victory and moved on. "FedProud??"

Rwexler

SHOULD IT MATTER?

Friends, every so often I become obsessed with how the "system" selects its lay leaders -- obsessed with the question: should national or international organizations restrict their key lay leadership to those women and men who come from communities which have demonstrated over time their significant financial support of the appointing organizations?  

This is not a new question for me; it's one I've grappled with literally for decades. I don't if it was the first time, but I do remember a call I received from a terrific leader who told me: "Richard, I think you'll be happy to learn that I was just appointed the Chair of Federation Advocacy by UIA." Now, this lay leader is and was one of the most articulate leaders that I have known; a brilliant marketer. I responded: "You know, you would be fantastic except you come from a community that has been cutting its allocation to UIA for the Jewish Agency by huge percentages -- if you came to my community, you would not be considered the best spokesperson." This wasn't the last time I was asked a similar question by brilliant and generous leaders from communities whose allocations to the organizations these leaders had been asked to lead were horrifically low.

Is it appropriate, for example, that a wonderful philanthropist be denied an important leadership role in JAFI or the JDC because the community (in which they also played key roles, often the highest lay positions) are allocating less than 10% to JAFI or JDC? Or. would these national or international organizations be ill-served when represented by folks, their personal philanthropy notwithstanding, whose communities are not true financial partners in the work of the organizations these people would lead?

My point? If Leader A cannot inspire her/his own community to allocate what all of us would call a partnership commitment to, let's say the Jewish Agency, how will Leader A inspire anyone else to do what is right? I think we could all intuit the answer to that narrow question. But, we would not all reach a similar conclusion to the the question of whether generous leaders should be disqualified from leadership positions because they come from underperforming communities?

And, how do I know we would not all agree on an answer? I look around and discover that many national and international organizations' key leadership positions are filled without regard for their communities' organizational support. Some of us are blessed to come from the Chicago's, Cleveland's, Baltimore's and MetroWest's and more; others, not so much. 

As in so much in organized Jewish life, I wish there were easy answers to even the easiest questions.

There aren't.

Rwexler